maddogs hideaway

Welcome to Maddogs hideaway, The poormans predictor. Somedays I just feel like ridin...!

Name: MADDOG10
Location: North Jersey
Country: United States
Interests: restoring old cars, winning the lottery, avid football fan, and riding my motorcycles... Both (Harleys)...!!

Monday, September 01, 2014

More Swiss Banks Give Eric Holder One-Finger Salute

More Swiss Banks Give Eric Holder One-Finger Salute

John Ransom | Sep 01, 2014

John Ransom

More Swiss banks are dropping out of the U.S. banking program that the IRS supposedly uses to prevent American citizens from stashing cash overseas to avoid taxes. Known for 100 years as the original tax haven, free from the prying eyes of governments around the world, Swiss banks have provided banking services that guaranteed anonymity to arms dealers, Nazis, and law-abiding Americans alike.

Offshore banks, especially Swiss banks, are not generally used to evade taxes however. The government already has enforcement mechanisms in place to prevent tax evasion by the use of offshore banks by American citizens. No smart rich person, with competent advice, would attempt such a thing. Instead rich people—like the few doctors left who have money-- use offshore banks to protect assets from lawyers and lawsuit seekers who would try to take those assets away. If assets are stashed overseas, they are generally immune from attachment by lawyers. In the asset protection world, this is known as a lawsuit avoidance strategy.

But using as an excuse their hunt for tax cheats-- and the war on terror-- the United States has been pushing overseas banks for access to private banking information from banks with no legal obligation to cooperate with a government that has no jurisdiction over them.

Like banks in Switzerland.

Now, however, some Swiss banks are having second thoughts.

From Reuters:

At least 10 Swiss banks have withdrawn from a U.S. programme aimed at settling a tax dispute between them and the United States, Swiss newspaper NZZ am Sonntag said on Sunday, quoting unnamed sources.

Around 100 Swiss banks came forward at the end of last year to work with U.S. authorities in a programme brokered by the Swiss government to help the banks make amends for aiding tax evasion.

The key here is the phrase “make amends”. There is no mention of illegality here because Swiss banks fall under Swiss laws. But instead we are presented with a “Golly, gee, we sure are sorry that we broke no laws that we are bound to enforce, so have some cash anyway”-type pledge from Swiss banks that make it seem like the U.S. government and Swiss banks are really swell friends who need to make up.

And since U.S. banks are playing the same game with Obama and Eric Holder, I think the Swiss banks ought to be applauded for stopping that type of nonsense. No one should evade taxes, but the heavy hand of the government is prying into areas into which they have no legal right to go.

Like Switzerland. And home mortgages.

Why? Money, that’s why.

Because the program cited in the Swiss banking example is a variation on a scheme that the government is using here at home

There’s a growing need for banking reform in the United States. But it’s not the type of reform that Obama and his pals favor. Instead, using all the coercive powers of the federal government, the administration from “Chicago” has engaged in a greenmail campaign, long ago perfect by liberal special interests.

Growing up in Chicago I was witness to how Jesse Jackson Sr. and Operation PUSH would shake down companies for money in return for not being “hit” by special interests with the tag of being racist by the King of Black people.

It worked, keeping the Reverend Jackson and his various community organized confidence schemes in funds that he still lives off of.

So it’s hardly surprising that the Emperor of Black America, Barack Obama—who is at least Chicago-plated-- would bring this tactic to D.C.

Under Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, the administration has tagged banks as the bad guys—banks that are mostly the creation of the Obama administration genetic experimentation in banking. The government mixed Countrywide with Bank of America, JP Morgan with Bear Stearns, selling off parts of one bank to government-funded banks that were guaranteed by the Obama administration to make profits.

The ruse works like this: The Obama administration in conjunction with various “community organizations” have been chatting up the terrible wrong-doing that banks did in the 2008 financial crisis. These evil banks loaned the banks' capital to people for whom default was more likely, leaving the bank with large losses. The banks did this because if they didn’t they’d be hit with charges of racism by government types, community organizations and the various enforcement arms of various governmental units.

And for a while everything was lovely. The banks made more profits-- with an implied guarantee from the federal government that they wouldn’t lose money-- the government got their hooks deeper into banks, the real power in capitalist America. But when the economy slowed down and home prices stopped making ridiculous gains year after year, the scheme fell apart. That in part is why we had the 2008 financial crisis in the first place.

So after taking control of the banking system by bailing it out, Holder and Obama have now been going around engaging in “settlement” talks with U.S. banks over supposed abuses in regards to risky mortgage loans that banks took loses on. In return for the quid pro quo of not pursuing criminal charges against JP Morgan employees, for example, Holder and Obama have agreed to take a $13 billion settlement from JP Morgan for loans in made in 2005-2007 by a company that Obama made JP Morgan-- Bears Sterns-- buy with government money during the financial crisis.

$9 billion of that settlement goes to the federal government.

But it’s the criminal charges part that is so worrisome.

It’s why the Swiss should be applauded.

There are too many here in this country that would trade their liberty for a $13 billion settlement that means they—or their employees—won’t have to tangle with a greedy government that has the coercive power to put them in jail. And while the Swiss banks don't have anything like that at stake, they do have the one thing that Swiss banks are supposed to care about: Money.

By giving Eric Holder the finger it means they won’t be parting with any.

For me it’s just refreshing for one party, like Swiss banks, to be doing exactly what they should be doing under the law that applies to them.

I remember when that was the rule, not the exception.

Hopefully it spreads here at home.

Sunday, August 31, 2014

Obama Does Have A Strategy, And It's Awful

Obama Does Have A Strategy, And It’s Awful

Derek Hunter | Aug 31, 2014

Derek Hunter

On Thursday, President Obama told the world he didn’t yet have a strategy for dealing with the Islamic Front in Syria. Although it’s never good to let an army who beheads your citizens and is hell-bent on your destruction know you don’t know how to deal with them – yet, or otherwise – Josh Earnest, the president’s press secretary “clarified” his comments the next day. We do have a plan, it turns out. And the plan is awful.

Before we dive into the new statements, let’s take a look back at some older ones.

Back in January, when talking about terrorism, President Obama told the New Yorker magazine, “The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant. I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.”

The terrorist group making the biggest waves at the time was ISIS. Was the president referring to ISIS as part of a “jayvee team?” It went relatively unnoticed by the mainstream media then. But in the eight months since, ISIS has become the little jayvee team that could. It has taken over a landmass the size of Indiana – and growing. It has killed tens of thousands, displaced millions and amassed a fortune to fund its continued terror campaign.

But our posture toward this outfit has not changed.

When ISIS beheaded American journalists James Foley and posted the video on the Internet, the media remembered the quote and asked about it. Earnest went on to claim the president wasn’t talking about ISIS, just other groups, and that the White House always has taken the ISIS threat seriously.

That claim, on its face, would be insignificant, perhaps even believable, were it not for the president’s statement Thursday. If, as the White House now insists, it always has taken the threat seriously, how can it have no strategy for dealing with ISIS in Syria, or anywhere, 8 months later?

Perhaps the political advisors in the White House have yet to calculate how to use this threat to influence the November elections or to at the very least blame Congress for it. But we already know the president has a phone – right next to his pen – and that the Pentagon has phones, too. If he has taken the threat of ISIS seriously for eight months, why has he not used his phone to call the Pentagon and ask the military to formulate some possible strategies for any number of scenarios?

It’s clear the White House has not been interested in the threat posed by ISIS, either abroad or here in the homeland, or else we wouldn’t still be without a plan.

Which brings us to the “clarification” on Friday.

Josh Earnest, appearing on Morning Joe, said, “We don't have plans in place right now for what we want to do and what we could do militarily in Syria. But when it comes to confronting ISIL, the president has made very clear we do have a comprehensive strategy for confronting that threat that is posed by ISIL. That begins with supporting Iraq’s political leaders as they form the kind of inclusive government that can unite the country to confront the threat that their country faces right now.”

First, there they go again using ISIL—Islamic State in the Levant—as opposed to ISIS, the Islamic State in Syria. This is to sow confusion and distract from the administration’s record in dealing with this crisis.

Second, so our strategy is dependent upon Iraqi Shia, Sunni and Kurds coming together, putting aside centuries of hatred, forming a drum circle and singing “Kumbaya”? Hmmm … why didn’t we think of that before? Wait, we did.

Earnest wasn’t done. “It includes beefing up our support to Iraqi and Kurdish security forces in the form of training and equipment to help them take the fight to ISIL on the ground in their country.” This makes sense, but it would have made more sense before ISIS was the fully armed, disciplined and funded outfit it is now.

Earnest then added that the president has dispatched Secretary of State John Kerry to the area to “engage” with the region’s leaders but wasn’t clear on the goal of that engagement beyond engagement for its own sake.

Plus, he threw in that we’re bombing them in Iraq at least, so there’s that.

See, we do have a strategy. It’s a muddled, rudderless, leaderless strategy with no clear directives or goals. But really, is that such a surprise?

Saturday, August 30, 2014

Holder's Justice Dept Uses Bank Settlements to Fund Democrat Nonprofits

Holder’s Justice Dept Uses Bank Settlements to Fund Democrat Nonprofits

Michael Schaus | Aug 30, 2014

Michael Schaus

Once again, our Chicago-style Attorney General has proven that corruption is the basic foundation upon which the modern Democrat Party is built. Eric Holder, the nation’stop extortionist officer, has been running around the financial sector suing banks for anything (and everything) he can get away with. Ally Bank paid millions for alleged racist lending practices (an allegation the DOJ made without ever looking at loan portfolios), JP Morgan has shelled out billions for various anti-Obama comments regulatory infractions, and Bank of America just paid a $16.6 billion fine for their government-mandated role in the financial crises of 2008.

Aside from the fact that these onerous fines have not been coupled with any sort of actual criminal charges against any bank executives (I guess evidence of wrong doing is required for those pesky criminal cases), the DOJ’s handling of the fines is now raising even more serious questions. Apparently, Eric “Fast and Furious” Holder has been using the record breaking settlements to shore up the war chests of Progressive, Liberal, and Democrat non-profit organizations.

Social Justice, to our Department of Justice, means using the power of America’s top enforcement agency to bankroll the groups that help put Democrats in power. According to Judicial Watch, Holder’s so-called “Justice” Department has been “redistributing” these record breaking settlements to groups like La Raza, ACORN (remember that cute group that was ousted as a Democrat voter fraud machine?), and Operation Hope… Oh, and not that it really matters, but none of these groups were connected to the lawsuits that led to the record-breaking settlements. Heck, I was shocked to see that Obama’s Organizing for America wasn’t on the list.

Eric Holder’s penchant for extorting billions from banks would make Al Capone rethink his career as a bootlegger. It turns out, being an “activist” AG is far more profitable than selling prohibited substances, trafficking arms (although there’s apparently no reason not to do both), or orchestrating St Valentine’s Day “parties”.

Threatening everything from lengthy investigations to criminal charges, Holder has managed to squeeze over $16.6 billion dollars from Bank of America. But, really, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. In recent years, Holder has been accelerating his feverish attempt to hold faceless corporations “responsible” for allegations that may, or may not, have any roots to reality. So, why do banks pay? Well, for Bank of America, HSBC, JP Morgan, or Ally, it’s a whole lot easier to agree to a fine than fight the world’s most deep-pocketed plaintiff (the DOJ).

A portion of all those funds were supposed to be redistributed to groups that had been adversely impacted by whatever vague actions were allegedly taken by those evil (read: wealthy) corporations. So… Did you get a check from the DOJ for your under-water mortgage from Bank of America? Yeah, most people didn’t. You better go check with your local Democrat-friendly non-profit; because it’s pretty likely a check was sent to them for your suffering. (You can recognize the Democrat friendly non-profits pretty easily: They’re the ones that aren’t getting audited by the IRS.)

Of course, this is probably a godsend to those Liberal advocacy groups that would otherwise have to depend on donations from the general public. I mean, who needs to actually prove your worth to a community, when you have your very own Attorney General redistributing protection money to your cause?

Eric Holder, the self-admitted “activist” Attorney General, has repeatedly proven that there is no depths to which he will not slouch, if given a pass by the main stream media. Refusing to investigate the IRS scandal, running guns to Mexico (while simultaneously fighting for stronger American gun laws), “choking out” certain industries, and specifically targeting politically-dissenting journalists, was apparently just the beginning of Holder’s venture into government-sanctioned corruption. Now acting as a supplemental slush fund for progressive causes (with the cash of questionably targeted financial institutions), our Extortionist AG is proving that it pays to be in bed with the guys who call the shots.

In Al Capone’s time, we called those guys a part of La Cosa Nostra. Today, we call it Obama’s Democrat Party.

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Here America: Have Some More Filth to Go with that Government

Here America: Have Some More Filth to Go with that Government

John Ransom | Aug 18, 2014

John Ransom

Yes, the Democrats are that desperate. Smacked with the guy who has made his business to lead the loyal opposition to policies that hurt the country, the Democrats did something so foul, so mind numbingly stupid and so desperate that it out Nixoned Nixon in his worst of days. And in doing so, they’ve completed the transformation from political party to caricature.

Does Rick Perry's indictment disqualify him for 2016?!!! asks CNN, while fronting for the Dems. No, the indictment probably does not disqualify him. But Marco Rubio’s sip of water during a televised address should, right? Rubio’s problem was that he couldn’t get a grand jury to indict him on anything after he sullied the republic with a parched throat.

“The indictment and possible trial of Texas Gov. Rick Perry for allegedly applying illegal coercion to a district attorney will complicate -- but not kill,” writes Errol Louis at CNN, “his all-but-certain run for President in 2016. It's a sure bet that voters outside of Texas will forgive, ignore or overlook any outcome short of a conviction.”

With analysis like that, he should be named Error Louis.

Look, the indictment by Perry is a stupid move by the Dems, and nothing will come of it that needs forgiving—at least for Perry.

In fact, he’ll be applauded, lauded and lionized by the many people who rightly think government is out of control.

Perry, it seems, committed the unpardonable sin of holding the DA responsible for drunkenness. How dare mere mortals hold the people responsible for prosecuting crimes to a standard that applies to the rest of us?

Getting past the fact that this is the same DA’s office that indicted Tom DeLay on wholly political charges—charges that have been subsequently overturned by a higher court—the indictment only served to prove the point: You can’t trust these guys.

Because the people who indicted Rick Perry are the people who are going to decide if you complied with Obamacare, or Dodd-Frank, or the 70,000 pages of corrupt tax code that’s aimed at you. Or complied with any one of a number of mind-boggling rules and regulations that come out in the federal register every single day.

Heads they win and tails you lose, as long as you keep voting for them.

And don’t even think that you can make a case that a grand jury is responsible, not the DA for the indictment. The DA had to put on a case for the grand jury. And the only way they could do that was by bending, breaking and botching the law so badly that it can only be interpreted politically not legally.

“Perry did not want to influence the DA,” writes legal scholar Henry Mark Holzer on his blog, “He wanted her gone. The governor of Texas was commendably trying to coerce the drunken, abusive, irresponsible, literally unethical DA to resign.”

The indictment, says Holzer, should be quashed.

It won’t be.

Because in the contest to run America for the foreseeable future, the Democrats have so mismanaged and bungled their chance to make a case for themselves that their only choice is to criminalize the opposition.

They think that makes them the more powerful party.

But they are wrong.

In the book Primary Colors, political idealists are turned from purely idealistic opposition to Richard Nixon, into power-hungry presidential wanna-bes who would force the country to eat more filth than even Watergate generated in order to gain power.

And yes: In the book they did gain power thereby. The Clintons-- upon whom the story is based—gained power that way too in real life.

And in real life the same mechanisms that brought them to power will deprive these Democrats of power.

Because the desperation the Democrats are showing isn’t a policy. It’s an indictment. And yes, they really are that dumb.

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Pretty much sums this up also.!!

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Monday, August 18, 2014

Barack Obama's Zero Sum World

Barack Obama’s Zero Sum World

Star Parker | Aug 18, 2014

Star Parker


Investopedia defines a “zero sum game” as “a situation in which one person’s gain is equivalent to another’s loss, so the net change in wealth or benefit is zero.”

If a political leader wielding power sees the world as a zero sum game – gains to one must mean a loss to another – it is likely that this leader will promote policies that will limit growth, wealth creation and innovative problem solving.

What a zero sum worldview will produce more of is political, class, and ethnic resentment and strife.

It so happens we have a leader today that has this worldview and his name is Barack Obama. It is not surprising that today’s world over which he is presiding, at home and abroad, increasing shows these characteristics.

President Obama was very candid in a recent interview with Thomas Friedman of the New York Times in which he stated his zero sum view of the world.

“Obama made clear,” Friedman writes, “that he is only going to involve America more deeply in places like the Middle East to the extent that different communities there agree to an inclusive politics of no victor/no vanquished.”

There you have it. No suggestion that there is right and wrong, or better answers that make everyone better off and worse answers that don’t. No, in our president’s take on the world, if there is a winner who winds up better off there must be a loser who winds up equally worse off.

The president then made clear that he views the world through this zero sum lens at home as well as abroad.

According to him, notes Friedman, “…we (America) will never realize our full potential unless our two parties adopt the same outlook we’re asking of Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds or Israelis and Palestinians: No victor, no vanquished and work together.”

This “inclusive” world view, devoid of right and wrong, true and false, better and worse, stands starkly in contrast to what Abraham Lincoln had to say when confronting a nation torn apart by the question of whether it would tolerate slavery.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand,” said Lincoln. “I believe this government cannot stand, permanently, half slave and half free...It will become all one thing or all the other.”

The president’s “no victor, no vanquished” take on the world is turning up the flames of the Israeli Palestinian conflict by legitimizing the falsehood that if Israelis are better off it means that Arabs will be worse off.

It perversely forces the Israelis to sit and negotiate with Hamas – an organization that even the United States officially designates as a terrorist organization.

Author George Gilder characterizes the Middle East conflict as “not between Arab and Jews but between admiration for achievement, along with a desire to replicate it, and envy accompanied by violent resentment.”

Gilder describes how the inflow of Jewish settlers in the last century transformed Palestine for the benefit of all.

“Between 1921 and 1943,” he writes, “Jews quadrupled the number of enterprises, multiplied the number of jobs by a factor of 10, and increased the level of capital investment a hundredfold.”

“Far from displacing Arabs,” continues Gilder, “ they (Jews) provided the capital for a major expansion of Arab farms and enabled a sevenfold rise in Arab population by 1948.”

Zero sum politics plays out in similarly destructive ways in our own country. Instead of building a culture of achievement and responsibility, politicians of the left stoke grievances of low income Americans, inspire envy and resentment, and teach that the poor are poor because the rich are rich.

By stoking these politics of envy and victimhood, it’s the politicians, at home and abroad, who grow powerful and wealthy. The disenfranchised languish as political pawns, never hearing the truth that life is about making correct personal choices in an imperfect world.

Sunday, August 17, 2014

The New Republican Party

The New Republican Party

Bruce Bialosky | Aug 17, 2014

Bruce Bialosky

The political world has been abuzz with speculation about the Senate races and whether the Republicans will take over majority of the Upper House. While this was happening, I spent my time finding out what was really afoot within the Republican world.

This all started when I had the opportunity to see a presentation by Andy Barkett, the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) first Chief Technology Officer. What I was listening to piqued my interest. It is as if the RNC had finally come alive. I wrote a column about the challenges facing the party during the turmoil after the 2012 election and the election of Reince Preibus as the Chairman of the RNC, reinstalling Mr. Preibus as the head of the party. Having actually worked on the past four presidential elections, I have seen first-hand the capabilities of the party and what was needed to win. In that column, I advocated a vertically-integrated system that used the assets of the RNC to aid in the election of offices down to the local sheriff with information flowing back up to the national party. This seemed to be what I was hearing from Barkett, but I wanted to explore the status of the party’s information capabilities more.

That brought me to an interview with Chuck Defeo, the Chief Digital Officer and Deputy Chief of Staff of the RNC. Defeo, a Political Science graduate of the University of Missouri-Kansas City, somewhat fell into being a tech guy. He started working for then-Senator John Ashcroft in 1996, when all those late nights of computer geeking led him to organizing the computer side of the Senator’s operations. Defeo used that as a springboard to other political tech gigs, which then landed him as the person who organized the digital efforts for the 2004 Bush reelection campaign. Those were the days when the Republicans were ahead in the organizing game. Since then, the Obama campaigns have left the Republicans behind in their efforts to turn out voters, raise money and win elections.

So what did Defeo find when he came on board last July? Surprisingly, he found a very positive attitude -- a willingness to change and improve with the goal of helping Republican candidates win in 2014, thus building toward 2016.

The perception of the Republicans falling behind was because of two reasons as stated by Defeo. First, the RNC has had four different leaders since 2004 and there was a perceived underfunding in the technology area over that period. Second, in the two Presidential election cycles, Obama had a billion dollars. In 2012, they had barrels of money plus they had a four-year run-up to the election to put their team and strategy in place. I spent 12 days in Columbus, Ohio, just prior to Election Day, and one could see and feel the advantages the Obama team had over Romney’s -- just 90 days in existence since winning the nomination. As for looking ahead, Defeo told me “The DNC just received the data from the Obama campaign last year, and they will not have a billion dollars in 2014.”

The test case for the work being done by Defeo and his team was this year’s March 13th special election in Florida for the 13th district Congressional seat. In this race David Jolly, a Republican, beat the favored Democrat Alex Sink, a former gubernatorial candidate. The voter contact done by the RNC was very precise as Defeo told me they got within 415 votes of their targeted absentee votes from a list of over 20,000. This very effective campaign and the turn out the vote effort allowed Jolly to surprise Sink and take the seat by almost 2%.

Defeo and his team now have their focus on ramping up that effort to compete in thousands of races across the country. It is a large task, the results of which we will see on November 4th. As for integrating the network from the RNC down to the local races, Defeo stated “The database has been built. We need to improve access to the data for our candidates and reception of data back from those candidates and their campaigns.”

It is clear that the RNC has taken the commitment to create a first-class technology base to provide the tools for Republican candidates to compete in every race in the country. We will soon see whether the fruits of their efforts overcome the prior technology advantage Obama’s team created for the Democrats. These things swing like a pendulum and we will know soon whether they have swung back.

Sunday, August 17, 2014

Oh Yes, This is That Good):"Needed: A President with Testicular Fortitude"

Needed: A President with Testicular Fortitude

John Ransom | Aug 17, 2014

John Ransom

ericynot1: Ransom once again has lambasted the BO admin, this time for its policies vis-a-vis Russia's Ukraine adventure. That's fine. But I'm left wondering what he thinks the right policy would be if we had a different president. It sounds as though Ransom thinks it's some sort of military operation ("force"). But what exactly? Bomb Russia? Bomb eastern Ukraine? Mass U.S. troops along the Belarus-Ukraine border (as though anyone would allow that)? Send a flotilla of Navy ships into the Black Sea? Drone attacks on Donetsk? Criticism is OK -- so long as you have a better idea about what to do. But I haven't seen that here today. And, frankly, I'm not sure there is a better idea.- A Policy So Bizarre, So Obama

Dear Comrade Y1,

The better idea would be to have a president who has some gonads and some sense of proportion.

Obama’s a guy who wears a bike helmet for safety reasons—for him—while telling the rest of us to disarm—for safety reasons—for the government.

Speaking of disarming, the time to have discouraged Russia would have been before they started trouble in Eastern Ukraine.

There were a number of ways we could have done that. Instead we choose to unilaterally disarm.

We should have built the missile defense system in the Ukraine. We should have admitted Ukraine to NATO. We should have completed a status of forces agreement with Ukraine that pushed the West’s NATO frontier from Germany into Poland and Ukraine. We shouldn’t have given the Russians a “reset” button on US-Russia relations. We should have helped them be less dependent on Russian energy, by supplying…wait…American energy to the country.

Those were all policy alternatives open to the administration, but since we can’t seem to even supply Americans with American energy resources, it’s no wonder Obama rejected these common sense proposals.

What would I do now?

I’d commit a division of troops, say the Third Infantry Division, to the parts of Ukraine not currently involved in the fighting. I’d speed up war material and aid to Ukraine including training in counter-insurgency operations. I would order the shootdown of the next Russian military aircraft that “accidently” penetrates into US airspace probing our North American defenses.

I’d ban commercial flights from Russia into the United States. I’d seize Russian state assets here in the US, including marketable securities in Russian owned companies. I’d make it illegal for Russian companies to raise money in American capital markets. I’d kick the Russian ambassador out of the country, close down their consulates.

I’d encourage a group of radical, free market economics students who are studying Austrian economics at George Mason University, under the leadership of professor Peter Morici at the University of Maryland, to seize and hold hostage for 444 days the entire Russian embassy compound including the staff even to the Russian janitors.

Pusillanimity is not a substitute for policy.

Obama says he wants peace. But Obama’s version of “peace” includes war thrown in for good measure, at the most disadvantaged circumstances.

Syria, Afghanistan, Israel, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine: These are all victims of a president who has no testicles.

If I had a million dollars I'd pay a million dollars tomorrow* for a reporter to ask Obama is he even still has a set of balls. I mean for playing basketball.

*This offer expires at midnight August 15th 2014 and is contingent upon the author, me, John Ransom, receiving donations in the amount of $2 million, which can be directed to this publication's corporate offices.

Thank you.

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Reagan vs. Obama: The Largest Tax Cut in American History Remembered

Reagan vs. Obama: The Largest Tax Cut in American History Remembered

Ashley Pratte |

Ashley Pratte

Today marks the 33rd anniversary of the signing of the Economic Recovery Tax Act by President Reagan at his beloved Rancho del Cielo.


The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 was one of the signature pieces of legislation during Reagan’s tenure as President. The bill cut taxes by 25 percent for every American, the largest tax cut in American history.


President Reagan made it a point to sign this historic piece of legislation at his humble ranch home nestled away in the mountains outside of Santa Barbara. He recognized that the power rested with the people and not the bureaucrats in Washington. By signing the document at Rancho del Cielo, he sent the message to the country that he was a President who had the people’s best interests at heart.


Once these tax cuts were implemented, youth unemployment plummeted. Youth unemployment began at 18.8 percent under Reagan and fell to 10.7 percent by the end of his Presidency. Reagan believed in economic freedom and the idea that every individual should have the opportunity to prosper if they worked hard.


Compare that to today. Youth unemployment sits at a high of 18.1 percent with no hope of improvement. Millennials are now realizing their post-graduation employment opportunities are slim. Currently six million young people are idle, which means they are neither attending school nor working. Others are living at home, working part-time jobs, barely able to afford their monthly student loan payments. How will this generation be able to prepare for retirement or save to buy a house or achieve their “American Dream?”


Today’s young people deserve better than the current President offers with his detrimental economic policies. Young people were some of Obama’s most enthusiastic supporters, but now the reality of their support is burdensome. The promises of free healthcare and employment after college never came to fruition. The reality is that Reagan’s signature piece of legislation helped young people and led to a long period of economic growth, whereas Obama’s signature legislation, Obamacare, is killing jobs and creating economic hardship for many Americans-- especially millennials.


Reagan recognized that Washington’s power needed to be limited and controlled which is vastly different than the viewpoint of the current President, who constantly puts more power in the hands of federal bureaucrats. Ronald Reagan is quoted as famously saying, “The government isn’t the solution to our problems. Government is the problem.” Obama’s policies have created little to no opportunity for America’s youth. His policies are the problem.


President Reagan was a champion of young people and truly believed in enacting initiatives that created a bright future for them. On this anniversary of the largest tax cut in American history, let us renew our commitment to Reagan’s lasting accomplishments by advancing the principles of economic freedom, individual liberty, and opportunity.

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Hillary's Biggest Whopper: "I am Not an Obama Clone"

Hillary's Biggest Whopper: "I am Not an Obama Clone"

Donald Lambro | Aug 15, 2014

Donald Lambro

WASHINGTON - We haven't heard the last of Hillary Clinton's attempts to separate herself, and her expected presidential candidacy, from Barack Obama's policies.

Her stinging put down of Obama's impotent foreign policies in Iraq and elsewhere were just the beginning of a carefully plotted campaign to persuade enough Americans that she's not an Obama clone.
From the beginning, the number one problem that faced her long-planned candidacy is that she would follow in the footsteps of a failed presidency. Indeed, she could already hear the Republicans' 2016 campaign cry: "If you liked the Obama administration, you'll love what Hillary wants to do."
Clinton's politically choreographed remarks earlier this week, in an interview with the Atlantic magazine, were but the first of many artful dodges to come.
Dredging up Obama's long-forgotten description of his strategic foreign policy as "Don't do stupid stuff," she shot it down with this well-executed attack line:
"Great nations need organizing principles, and 'Don't do stupid stuff' in not an organizing principle," she said.
Clinton, whose timid, vacuous, super cautious record as secretary of State was mediocre at best, disgraceful at its worst, is the last person to talk about organizing foreign policy principles.
She made a lot of speeches around the globe, and it is reported that she disagreed with Obama's escalated pull-out from Iraq and the way it was carried out. But she was loyal to his misguided policies, carried them out, and now is squirming over having to defend them.
Still, her record on foreign policy matters is not one that that demonstrates she's ready to make foreign policy as the nation's chief executive.
Let's start with the scandal in Benghazi, Libya, where the U.S. ambassador and and three other Americans were killed in the Consulate there in a full-scale terrorist attack. After a thorough investigation, the record shows her State Department ignored numerous pleas from the ambassador for added security there.
The larger scandal that followed was made worse when her State Department's initial response to the well-planned attack blamed it on a protest over an anti-Islam, YouTube video that, in its words, "got out of hand."
Months later, when Clinton was called to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the deadly events, she delivered her "What difference does it make" line that will haunt her future presidential campaign.
When she was running for president against Obama in 2008, she went after his inexperience in a TV campaign ad about the White House crisis phone ringing in the middle of the night and who was there to answer it.
"There's a phone in the White House and it's ringing. Something is wrong in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call. Whether someone knows the world's leaders, knows the military, someone tested and ready to lead. It's 3 a.m. Who do you want answering the phone?" the ad says.
But when U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens was calling on Hillary for added security in the face of growing terrorist threats, she didn't pick up the phone to help him.
She was too busy jet-setting around the world, chasing former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's record of logging more miles than any previous secretary of state.
But what did Clinton accomplish over the course of her empty-handed, four-year term in office? Nothing. The Middle East is a fiery, blood-soaked battleground. Al-Qaeda terrorists and their spin-off armies are on the brink of seizing control of Iraq and Afghanistan, making inroads in Syria and across North Africa. Vladimir Putin has seized Ukraine's Crimean peninsula and threatens yet another military push into that war-torn country's eastern half.
Now, as Clinton continues her book promotion tour, she is attempting to divorce herself from that record, avoiding the key question of what did she do in the world of foreign relations to make the world a better place?
It is reported that she called Obama after the interview to apologize, but she isn't backtracking on her criticism of his strategic policy positions.
She was in Martha's Vineyard Wednesday -- where the president is on a two week vacation -- for a book signing at the Bunch of Grapes Bookstore and planned to attend a private party fundraiser there. When she was asked at the bookstore if she disagreed with Obama's handling of the crisis in Iraq, she merely replied, "I'm excited about signing books."
When asked about their relationship, she said, "We are committed to the values and the interests of the security of our country together. We have disagreements as any partners and friends, as we are, might very well have."
But those disagreements likely run far deeper that may be evident right now.
There are some here who say that Clinton has serious problems with Obama's economic policies. She has built strong political alliances on Wall Street and is said to think that major policy changes are needed to boost economic growth and job creation.
When she and Obama were running against each other in the party primaries, one of her key advisers told me she did not agree with Obama's call for raising taxes while the economy was still in a recession.
But it remains to be seen what her ultimate views are on a wide range of these and other domestic issues, and how they could impact on her candidacy in the remaining two plus years of Obama's presidency.
One thing is clear, however. No matter how much she tries to politically divorce herself from Obama's policies, her chances of winning the White House will be affected by them.
What if Obamacare collapses financially because it has not signed up enough younger, healthier people? Or an uneven economy and job market worsens in the months to come? Or the rise of global terrorism poses a much more lethal threat to the U.S.?
That's when Americans will rise up and say, we've had enough of the Democrats. It's time for a change.